Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Gandalf]

He also has a party with control of two (likely soon three) branches of the Federal government, and control of many state governments, which is largely willing to aid and abet him, or at least turn a blind eye, on things like voter suppression.

We undersell that threat at our peril.

For me, the threat is not Trump himself, but the "Trump movement*" which is led by the likes of Bannon, et al. The GOP is as scummy as they've always been. Is Trump ordering hate crimes? No, but others can do them because they know that they'll have a degree of cover for their actions from like minded individuals. Trump will be out of office within eight years, but that newly active part of the electorate probably isn't going anywhere. That's the scary part, because they'll pick another likeable (for their base) guy to put in the big chair as a host for some of the ugliest parasites in US society.

*I can't think of another name for the coalition of Neo-Nazis and the easily led.

[Highlord Laan]

"Trump movement*"

*I can't think of another name for the coalition of Neo-Nazis and the easily led.

"The Republican Party?"

[Simon_Jester]

Oh god, being in the military doesn't secure you and your entire family the privilege of not having to deal with the same shit as everyone else?

The horror. It's almost like they aren't semi-divine superheroes.

Actually, this isn't about superheroism.

It's more of a reciprocal arrangement: "Risk your ass for Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam will take care of you and yours." This is the sort of thing that most people, even people who have bizarre social Darwinist views about the merits of welfare for the general population, tend to accept.

But it also has costs, and it's the kind of thing that the blind idiotic anti-government of Trumpolini is almost incapable of respecting.

They can't even honor deals, essentially.

[Dragon Angel]

Oh god, being in the military doesn't secure you and your entire family the privilege of not having to deal with the same shit as everyone else?

The horror. It's almost like they aren't semi-divine superheroes.

Actually, this isn't about superheroism.

It's more of a reciprocal arrangement: "Risk your ass for Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam will take care of you and yours." This is the sort of thing that most people, even people who have bizarre social Darwinist views about the merits of welfare for the general population, tend to accept.

But it also has costs, and it's the kind of thing that the blind idiotic anti-government of Trumpolini is almost incapable of respecting.

They can't even honor deals, essentially.

Yeah. We ask them to risk their lives, especially in the modern era with us fighting wars that frankly shouldn't even exist, so the least we can do then is to make sure that their families are taken care of while they're far away into some distant land. I'm not a jingoist nor a military nut, but that's just something I accept while we're in this situation. As long as we're fighting an infinite war and as long as we use people as soldiers, we will always be in this situation. Not like the politicians of the Right really care about people though, except for the people with the big $$$$.

If Trump pisses off the entire armed forces by the end of his first term, he will certainly doom his party. Of all things people in this country care the most about in this godforsaken era, it's the military forces. Piss off the soldiers, and.....

[K. A. Pital]

Piss off the soldiers and what?

Mutiny? Uprising? I just wonder what's gonna happen.

[Dragon Angel]

What? No. I meant, piss off the soldiers and if word gets around that our government is treating the soldiers like shit, even the people who have sympathies with the Republicans and total conservatism will lose complete interest. They may not outright vote for the Democrats, but they may just sit out another election. Remember, one of America's greatest mottos is "Support the troops!" It's been drilled into Americans for decades. It would be horrible politically for the Republicans to take a dump on the people serving; it would be jumping off the metaphorical skyscraper.

[Lord Revan]

I also suspect that people in the military tend to on average more conservative then the norm so they're more likely to vote GOP but if you piss them off you loose a large section of voters that might have voted for your party otherwise but won't do so if all you're giving them is worries and disrespect.

[The Romulan Republic]

As far as the political leanings of the armed forces, its my recollection that in the last election, the favoured candidates in the military were Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Take from that what you will.

[Gandalf]

What? No. I meant, piss off the soldiers and if word gets around that our government is treating the soldiers like shit, even the people who have sympathies with the Republicans and total conservatism will lose complete interest. They may not outright vote for the Democrats, but they may just sit out another election. Remember, one of America's greatest mottos is "Support the troops!" It's been drilled into Americans for decades. It would be horrible politically for the Republicans to take a dump on the people serving; it would be jumping off the metaphorical skyscraper.

They were treated pretty terribly by the Bush admin, and it didn't seem to be too much of an issue politically. Look at what happened to soldiers who questioned the administration after 2003.

They can't even honor deals, essentially.

Sir, I'll have you know that not honouring deals is one of the proudest tradition of the US government!

[SpottedKitty]

If Trump pisses off the entire armed forces by the end of his first term few months

FTFY. My money (if I had any) is on "won't last that long".

It's weird, I thought he'd at least have some sort of sense of self-preservation, politically if not physically. Apparently not; although if some of the things he said — at least on this topic — while still on campaign didn't sink him...

[Lord Revan]

If Trump pisses off the entire armed forces by the end of his first term few months

FTFY. My money (if I had any) is on "won't last that long".

It's weird, I thought he'd at least have some sort of sense of self-preservation, politically if not physically. Apparently not; although if some of the things he said — at least on this topic — while still on campaign didn't sink him...

The thing is everyone knows that politician say things they don't mean to grab this intrest group or that, it's not even unique to USA, however people generally take things said while in office more seriously as you don't have to tander to intrest groups as much since you've already won the elections.

[Simon_Jester]

Hopefully at least a few more Americans will have learned to pay attention to what is said on the campaign trail, by the timpe the Trumpolini administration is over.

Even if it doesn't give you insight to someone's policies, it can tell you one hell of a lot about their character.

They were treated pretty terribly by the Bush admin, and it didn't seem to be too much of an issue politically. Look at what happened to soldiers who questioned the administration after 2003.

There's questioning the war and then there's abusive treatment of veterans.

The military community, at least in the US, isn't fond of the idea of soldiers getting to argue over whether wars should be fought. That road leads to a military that is incapable of fighting wars, be they necessary or unnecessary. If there's going to be an army at all, that army has to follow orders.

However, the military also has an expectation that they and their dependents will be taken care of, and not treated like this.

It is a fairly simple quid pro quo arrangement. "We will fight your wars, even when maybe we shouldn't, because that decision is made by civilian politicians, not by soldiers voting on whether or not to fight. In exchange, we expect a country fit to live in for ourselves and our immediate families."

This arrangement has the tacit approval of virtually all Americans. Even many who seem singularly uninterested in having a country fit to live in for the non-military members of our society.

This is not a difficult concept to understand about American society; there is little or no point in arguing with it.

They can't even honor deals, essentially.

Sir, I'll have you know that not honouring deals is one of the proudest tradition of the US government!

There's a difference between failing to honor deals, and being so crazystupid that one is incapable of honoring them even when it is to one's advantage to do so.

[Thanas]

There's questioning the war and then there's abusive treatment of veterans.

And Walter Reed and slashing the benefits of Vet. healthcare wasn't abusive?

[K. A. Pital]

Ah what! Immortan Don will give them cash to make them shiny and chrome:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017 ... e-spending

Trump will also have to make his case to Congress, which has the final say on his budget. On Monday the White House announced he will seek a $54bn hike in spending on tanks, ships and weapons systems while cutting foreign aid, environmental programmes and domestic agencies by the same amount. The US already spends more on the military than the next eight countries combined.

“This budget will be a public safety and national security budget,” Trump said at the White House. “It will include an historic increase in defence spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States of America at a time we most need it.”

They will not be dissappointed. They will be awaited.

[FaxModem1]

CNN

Trump proposes $54 billion in cuts to 'most federal agencies'
By Dan Merica, Jeremy Diamond and Kevin Liptak, CNN
Updated 4:18 PM ET, Mon February 27, 2017
Trump: We have to start winning wars again
Now Playing Trump: We have to start...
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 22: Retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, U.S. national security advisor, arrives to a swearing in ceremony of White House senior staff in the East Room of the White House on January 22, 2017 in Washington, DC. Trump today mocked protesters who gathered for large demonstrations across the U.S. and the world on Saturday to signal discontent with his leadership, but later offered a more conciliatory tone, saying he recognized such marches as a "hallmark of our democracy." (Photo by Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images)
Flynn: One of the greatest presidencies
Federal Judge James Robart at a hearing in Seattle on August 26, 2015.
Judge rejects request to delay travel ban case
US President Donald Trump (R) and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participate in a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House on February 13, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Trump defends ban, Trudeau has opposing view
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 10: (AFP OUT) U.S. President Donald Trump (R) and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pose for photographs before bilateral meetings in the Oval Office at the White House February 10, 2017 in Washington, DC. Trump and Abe are expected to discuss many issues, including trade and security ties and will hold a joint press confrence later in the day. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Trump shakes Japanese PM's hand for 19 seconds

Tapper: Trump's tweets a window into his soul
Schneider Trump travel ban newday_00000005.jpg
Trump slams 'so-called' judge who halted ban
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast February 2, 2017 in Washington, DC.
CNN/ORC poll: Trump approval rating at 44%
President Donald Trump signs three executive actions in the Oval Office on January 28, 2017 in Washington, DC. The actions outline a reorganization of the National Security Council, implement a five year lobbying ban on administration officials and a lifetime ban on administration officials lobbying for a foreign country and calls on military leaders to present a report to the president in 30 days that outlines a strategy for defeating ISIS.
Trump's foreign policy sparks confusion
Trump governors Now Playing
Trump: We have to start winning wars again
Donald Trump Florida rally
President Trump starts rally attacking media
President Donald Trump waits to speak at his "Make America Great Again Rally" at Orlando-Melbourne International Airport in Melbourne, Fla., Saturday, Feb. 18, 2017. Trump is launching his 2020 re-election campaign just 1,354 days before the 2020 election. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
CNN anchor to Trump: Jefferson favored media
Trump supporter
Trump brings supporter on stage during rally
iran moderates fear us trump relations pleitgen pkg_00005510.jpg
Congress could force release of Trump's taxes
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 15: U.S. President Donald Trump (R) and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) shake hands during a joint news conference at the East Room of the White House February 15, 2017 in Washington, DC. President Trump hosted Prime Minister Netanyahu for talks for the first time since Trump took office on January 20. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Trump: I can live with 2 or 1-state solution
Trump aides linked to Russian officials ORIG TC_00013809.jpg
Trump White House seeing chaotic first month
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 13: U.S. President Donald Trump listens as he participates in a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the East Room of the White House on February 13, 2017 in Washington, DC. The two leaders participated in a roundtable discussion on the advancement of women entrepreneurs and business leaders. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Watch Trump ignore several questions on Russia
WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 22: Retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, U.S. national security advisor, arrives to a swearing in ceremony of White House senior staff in the East Room of the White House on January 22, 2017 in Washington, DC. Trump today mocked protesters who gathered for large demonstrations across the U.S. and the world on Saturday to signal discontent with his leadership, but later offered a more conciliatory tone, saying he recognized such marches as a "hallmark of our democracy." (Photo by Andrew Harrer-Pool/Getty Images)
Flynn: One of the greatest presidencies
Federal Judge James Robart at a hearing in Seattle on August 26, 2015.
Judge rejects request to delay travel ban case
US President Donald Trump (R) and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participate in a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House on February 13, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Trump defends ban, Trudeau has opposing view
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 10: (AFP OUT) U.S. President Donald Trump (R) and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pose for photographs before bilateral meetings in the Oval Office at the White House February 10, 2017 in Washington, DC. Trump and Abe are expected to discuss many issues, including trade and security ties and will hold a joint press confrence later in the day. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Trump shakes Japanese PM's hand for 19 seconds

Tapper: Trump's tweets a window into his soul
Schneider Trump travel ban newday_00000005.jpg
Trump slams 'so-called' judge who halted ban
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast February 2, 2017 in Washington, DC.
CNN/ORC poll: Trump approval rating at 44%
President Donald Trump signs three executive actions in the Oval Office on January 28, 2017 in Washington, DC. The actions outline a reorganization of the National Security Council, implement a five year lobbying ban on administration officials and a lifetime ban on administration officials lobbying for a foreign country and calls on military leaders to present a report to the president in 30 days that outlines a strategy for defeating ISIS.
Trump's foreign policy sparks confusion
Trump governors
Trump: We have to start winning wars again
Donald Trump Florida rally
President Trump starts rally attacking media
President Donald Trump waits to speak at his "Make America Great Again Rally" at Orlando-Melbourne International Airport in Melbourne, Fla., Saturday, Feb. 18, 2017. Trump is launching his 2020 re-election campaign just 1,354 days before the 2020 election. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
CNN anchor to Trump: Jefferson favored media
Trump supporter
Trump brings supporter on stage during rally
iran moderates fear us trump relations pleitgen pkg_00005510.jpg
Congress could force release of Trump's taxes
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 15: U.S. President Donald Trump (R) and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) shake hands during a joint news conference at the East Room of the White House February 15, 2017 in Washington, DC. President Trump hosted Prime Minister Netanyahu for talks for the first time since Trump took office on January 20. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Trump: I can live with 2 or 1-state solution
Trump aides linked to Russian officials ORIG TC_00013809.jpg
Trump White House seeing chaotic first month
WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 13: U.S. President Donald Trump listens as he participates in a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the East Room of the White House on February 13, 2017 in Washington, DC. The two leaders participated in a roundtable discussion on the advancement of women entrepreneurs and business leaders. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Watch Trump ignore several questions on Russia
Story highlights
"This budget will be a public safety and national security budget," Trump said
Few details were provided on how the cuts will be made
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's first budget proposal will look to increase defense and security spending by $54 billion and cut roughly the same amount from non-defense programs, the White House said Monday.

The budget blueprint, which was sent to government agencies Monday, would increase defense spending to $603 billion and decrease non-defense discretionary spending to $462 billion, Office of Budget Management director Mick Mulvaney said.
"This budget will be a public safety and national security budget," Trump said at a bipartisan gathering of US governors at the White House Monday, vowing substantial increases in defense, law enforcement and infrastructure spending.
The majority of "lower priority programs and most federal agencies" will see a reduction in their budget as a result of the proposal, according to an official at the Office of Management and Budget speaking with reporters on background.
The official said those cuts will come through "unauthorized programs" and places "where there is duplication, where consolidation needs to occur."

Trump: We have to start winning wars again 01:21
GOP returns to daunting task of dismantling Obamacare
Monday's announcement is only a budget blueprint and federal agencies will begin working with the White House to determine how to comply with their new budget. The proposals from the White House will also go to the agencies with suggestions on what to cut.
Mulvaney said Monday that the White House intends to have a budget to Congress by March 16 and have a final budget finished by "the first part of May."
A Trump administration official told CNN that all $54 billion will be cut in fiscal year 2018. Multiple officials have also made clear over the last 48 hours that the Environmental Protection Agency and foreign aid will be cut significantly under the new plan.
The budget, one OMB official said, expects "the rest of the world to step up in some of the programs this country has been so generous in funding" over the years.
Foreign aid makes up roughly 1% of the federal budget and includes a host of programs meant to help implement national security policy. While foreign aid has long been a target for conservatives, cuts to these programs are unlikely to get the Trump administration close to the $54 billion in proposed overall cuts.
The budget blueprint, which will outline in the clearest terms to date what Trump's policy priorities will be as president, fits with Trump's pledges to increase defense spending and cut government waste as a candidate.
"Yes, it is a fairly small part of the discretionary budget, but it is still consistent with what the President said," Mulvaney said of the foreign aid cuts. "We are taking his words and turning them into polices and dollars."
Mulvaney said Trump's proposed 2018 budget will include funds for the US-Mexico border wall, an issue that animated the President's 2016 campaign.
Trump, in addition to the 2018 increase, will also seek a $30 billion in supplemental defense money for the fiscal year 2017, a senior administration official told CNN. Mulvaney said some funding for the border wall will be included that measure.
Congress is not mandated to follow Trump's budget plan and in the coming weeks Republicans on Capitol Hill are expected to call administration officials to Congress to explain their proposal.
Trump said throughout the 2016 campaign that he would focus on spending cuts and tax reform, rhetoric that helped woo Republicans who questioned his commitment to other conservative principles.

Trump: Health care plan will be 'very special' 01:03
"I want the American people to know that our budget will reflect their priorities," Trump said in a budget meeting earlier this month. "We'll be directing all of our departments and agencies to protect every last American and every last tax dollar. No more wasted money."
Trump's closest advisers have also previewed dramatic changes to the federal government budget. At the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday, Steve Bannon, a top Trump aide, said that new administration's aim was "deconstruction of the administrative state," a comment many federal workers saw as a pledge to weaken regulatory agencies.
Monday, Trump vowed "a budget of great rationality" that would be unveiled in "great detail" during his address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday evening.
He wasn't specific about where he planned to cut spending, saying only he aimed for a more streamlined federal government without listing any specific agency or program that might see its budget slashed.
"We're going to do more with less," Trump said, promising a government that's "lean and accountable to the people."
"With 20 trillion dollars in debt, the government must learn to tighten its belt," Trump said.
Trump's proposed cuts have already been met with concern inside the federal government's bureaucracy. EPA employees have told CNN that many inside the agency are still in denial about the incoming cuts to their budget, despite the fact that Trump and Scott Pruitt, the newly approved EPA administrator, pledged to trim the agency.
"It is clear to me, and will be to most agency employees very soon, that Mr. Scott Pruitt has been nominated and confirmed as administrator of the US EPA in order to make significant and substantial changes to the agency," John O'Grady, the president of the union that represents EPA employees, said in response to the proposed cuts.
State Department spokesman Mark Toner said State is "working with the White House and OMB to review its budget priorities."
"The department remains committed to a US foreign policy that advances the security and prosperity of the American people," Toner added.
CORRECTION -- This story has been updated to accurately reflect the dollar figure attached to Trump's proposed cuts.

So, boiling it down, let's rob Peter to pay Paul, even when Peter doesn't have that much money.

[Gandalf]

The military community, at least in the US, isn't fond of the idea of soldiers getting to argue over whether wars should be fought. That road leads to a military that is incapable of fighting wars, be they necessary or unnecessary. If there's going to be an army at all, that army has to follow orders.

However, the military also has an expectation that they and their dependents will be taken care of, and not treated like this.

It is a fairly simple quid pro quo arrangement. "We will fight your wars, even when maybe we shouldn't, because that decision is made by civilian politicians, not by soldiers voting on whether or not to fight. In exchange, we expect a country fit to live in for ourselves and our immediate families."

This arrangement has the tacit approval of virtually all Americans. Even many who seem singularly uninterested in having a country fit to live in for the non-military members of our society.

This is not a difficult concept to understand about American society; there is little or no point in arguing with it.

I didn't say questioning the illegal invasion. I said questioning the administration. One is an action. One is a group of people.

There's a difference between failing to honor deals, and being so crazystupid that one is incapable of honoring them even when it is to one's advantage to do so.

Why not? Everyone makes money! Money is grand! Money is patriotic! Money is American! What are the fucked over soldiers realistically going to do? Can they strike?

[The Romulan Republic]

Isn't it called a mutiny when the military strikes?

[Gandalf]

Isn't it called a mutiny when the military strikes?

According to the UCMJ definition, yes. But the word mutiny has a bunch of other uses and connotations, so I decided to use strike because it's closer to what I meant.

[Crazedwraith]

Trump blames Obama for town hall protests and security leaks

US President Donald Trump has said he believes Barack Obama is behind the protests against Republican lawmakers, and national security leaks.

He told Fox News: "I think President Obama's behind it because his people are certainly behind it", but added: "I also think it's just politics".

Mr Trump offered no evidence for his claims; his predecessor in the White House has not commented.

Mr Trump also spoke about his budget plans and other issues.

In his wide-ranging interview with Fox News and Friends, he said:

He gave himself a "C" on getting his message out but an "A" for achievement and "A+" for effort
His plans to boost defence spending by $54bn (£43bn) would be paid for by a "revved up economy"
He would be a "hypocrite" if he attended the White House Correspondents' Dinner in light of "fake news"

President Trump's interview was broadcast hours before he is due to give his first address to a joint session of Congress in which he is expected to set out in greater detail his plans to cut spending and boost the economy

He was asked about the protests faced by some Republican politicians at town hall meetings across the country and not, as our earlier story said, protests about his travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.

He said he was certain Obama loyalists were behind both those protests and White House leaks. "In terms of him being behind things, that's politics. And it will probably continue," he added.

He was asked for more detail on how he would find the money for the 10% increase in military spending he has proposed for 2018. Proposed cuts elsewhere are unlikely to cover the proposed increase.

Mr Trump said he would get "more product for our buck" in terms of buying military hardware and would ask for a "form of reimbursement" from countries making use of the US military.

But he said his overall aim was to grow the economy.

"We were probably GDP of little more than 1% and if I can get that up to three or maybe more, we have a whole different ball game," he told the programme.

[Thanas]

Oh of course, the huge shadowy Obama cabal is feeding drugs to Trump's advisors forcing them to committ treason and conspiracy.

How could I not have seen it.

[K. A. Pital]

Mr Trump said he would get "more product for our buck" in terms of buying military hardware and would ask for a "form of reimbursement" from countries making use of the US military.

NORINCO and Rosoboronexport should start popping champagne. Oh the days.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, the funny thing is, if it somehow turned out that Obama was orchestrating leaks from the White House, my respect for him would rise considerably.

[SpottedKitty]

You know, the funny thing is, if it somehow turned out that Obama was orchestrating leaks from the White House, my respect for him would rise considerably.

<nod> Too good to be true, though — I don't consider You Know Who capable of telling the truth, even accidentally.

[Ralin]

It's more of a reciprocal arrangement: "Risk your ass for Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam will take care of you and yours." This is the sort of thing that most people, even people who have bizarre social Darwinist views about the merits of welfare for the general population, tend to accept.

But it also has costs, and it's the kind of thing that the blind idiotic anti-government of Trumpolini is almost incapable of respecting.

Yeah, in most contexts "We will reward you by making you and your extended family exempt from X law" is considered corruption. But apparently being in the military means that you're above all that.

Yeah. We ask them to risk their lives, especially in the modern era with us fighting wars that frankly shouldn't even exist, so the least we can do then is to make sure that their families are taken care of while they're far away into some distant land. I'm not a jingoist nor a military nut, but that's just something I accept while we're in this situation. As long as we're fighting an infinite war and as long as we use people as soldiers, we will always be in this situation. Not like the politicians of the Right really care about people though, except for the people with the big $$$$.

The least we can do is treat the fuckers fighting those wars with the contempt they deserve. Being one of Bush and Obama's Willing Executioners doesn't make your family (not even you, just people you happen to be related to) any more deserving of protection from immigration authorities or anything else. Fuck soldier worship, and fuck the idea that they deserve to be above the law.

[Dragon Angel]

The least we can do is treat the fuckers fighting those wars with the contempt they deserve. Being one of Bush and Obama's Willing Executioners doesn't make your family (not even you, just people you happen to be related to) any more deserving of protection from immigration authorities or anything else. Fuck soldier worship, and fuck the idea that they deserve to be above the law.

There are people who enlisted because they were in a shitty economic situation, and could not find any other job that would keep them and their families alive, or provide them a proper higher education, or provide a way to escape an abusive environment.
There are people who enlisted because they did so under the pretense given to them that wars being fought now were all just, and were convinced because of the mass amounts of propaganda flying about.
There are people who enlisted because they saw service as a way to gain citizenship, or as a stepping stone to another career, or as a way to escape a life filled with an eternal cycle of unhappiness (itself perhaps a subset of the first item).

These people may not have imagined themselves to be a part of a bloodthirsty killing machine. Or, alternatively, they may not have imagined just how much of a moral sacrifice they'd have to make. There is so much romanticism about military life that it is very possible for a not trivial percentage of them to have had a very wrong image of what the armed forces do, or the consequences of joining them. This isn't soldier worship. This isn't "placing them above the law". This is recognizing that these people are human, who may have joined because of desperation, or because of human mistakes, or anything else besides the desire to commit wantonly immoral acts. And in the end, walked themselves into a situation they cannot easily extract themselves from. If it's even possible for them to.

Granted, there are people who did join the military literally for the killing alone, but can you tell me how many of them compose the military? 25%? 50%? I will laugh at you if you say 90% or above. In any percentage, you'd have to provide proof of that if you want to make that claim.

If we had a better world, it is very likely these people would not have felt they needed to join the military to achieve what they felt they needed. People who join the armed forces know one thing: There is a significant chance that they may be placed into a situation where they will die. This is an implicit statement. If you want people to join, and if you want a functioning military, you need to provide some way of assuring the soldiers that their decisions to risk their lives for this country has some benefit to them and their own, else it would be completely meaningless for them to join.

Humans still have a self-preservation instinct, that the military has to constantly train out of its soldiers. People who join the military explicitly to die are a problem the military prevents as much as it can, because suicidal troops are a risk to the forces and to their fellow soldiers.

I don't like what this military does. I don't like what soldiers are forced to do. Painting them all with a broad stroke as willing, murderous puppets is not the right method of combating the problem. That is self-defeating, and not only, but it is also incredibly callous and shows extreme black and white thinking.